Filing molestation case isn’t abetment of suicide: Court grants anticipatory bail to 3

According to the prosecution, one of the women alleged that she was teased, molested and threatened by a man in May this year. After she lodged a police complaint along with her parents, the accused was called to the police station for inquiry. The following day, he allegedly took the extreme step after recording a video that was later circulated through his Instagram account, prompting the police to book the woman, her mother and sister.

The prosecution said the alleged incident took place on May 10, at around noon when she was returning to her old residence from her newly constructed house. The man allegedly intercepted the woman, before teasing and molesting her, and threatened to kill her if she revealed the incident to her family or the police.

Justice Ajay Kumar Nirankari pronounced the order on June 26.

On reaching home, the woman informed her mother and sister. The next day, the family filed a police complaint seeking legal action against the man. Following this, the police summoned the man for inquiry. On May 12, however, he allegedly killed himself. Based on the video he had recorded earlier, the police booked the three women under Section 108 (abetment) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS).

Women only invoked legal remedy: Defence

The women’s counsel said they had merely exercised their legal right by approaching the police after the alleged molestation. The defence contended that the May 11 complaint was bona fide and sought lawful action against the man’s alleged misconduct. It said that invoking the due process of law could never amount to instigation.

It was further argued that there was no death note, dying declaration or any legally admissible material attributing any overt act of instigation to the women. The prosecution, the defence said, failed to establish any act linking the women’s conduct with the man’s actions.

The women had no criminal antecedents, it was argued, and no custodial interrogation was required as the investigation was based primarily on documentary and oral evidence already in police possession.

The state opposed the plea, arguing that considering the nature and gravity of the allegations, the women did not deserve anticipatory bail.

What high court said

• The high court concluded that the material available at this stage did not disclose the essential ingredients of the offence of abetment. There was nothing indicating any direct or active action by the women that could be considered as instigation or intentional aid compelling the man to kill himself.
• A person’s reaction to a lawful police complaint can’t automatically make the complainant criminally liable for abetment of suicide.
• Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the prosecution’s case, the court said the women deserved the benefit of anticipatory bail.
• The essential ingredients of mens rea (guilty mind) and direct link between the women’s conduct and the alleged death are completely absent. The man’s action appears to be the result of his own reaction to the complaint lodged against him and not because of any illegal conduct attributable to the women.

Pre-arrest bail granted

The high court directed that in the event of their arrest, all three women shall be released on anticipatory bail on furnishing a personal bond of Rs 50,000 each with one solvent surety of the like amount.

The applicants have also been directed to cooperate with the investigation, appear before the investigating officer whenever required, refrain from influencing witnesses, not leave India without prior permission of the court and comply with the conditions prescribed under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita.